Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on June 13, 2001, 10:47:00 AM
-
It seems that WW2OL board is full of extremely tolerant people.
They are ready to forgive CRS and the publisher outright lies, unfounded arrogance and incompetence.
What surprises me is how intolerant they are to anyone not as tolerant as they. :rolleyes:
Just a mention of low framerates or intention to return the game to the store till it's ready for play causes a flamefest of epic proportions. Of course you ahve to understand them - all the supporters of WW2OL in it's current state who cannot log in must have lot of time on their hands to post such flames.
Speaking of WW2OL and CRS, the only reasonable explanation I've seen of their release fiasco was that they somehow determined non-viability of the product and decided to capitalize on the hype, sell the boxes to recoup the investments and declare bancrupcy before the real state of affairs becomes known.
That would be a pity. The game seems to be a real gem in those parts that work and just in need of a few more months of development.
Of course it may be that the bandwidth/server capacity required to support their claims is too expencive to make it profitable.
Maybe the front-end requirements are insurmountable for the forseable future. It is silly to advertise a cheap $10/month game but require a 1+Ghz with 512MB memory and 64MB card. People who can afford such PCs now could easily pay $50/month and Mac with such capabilities would cost much more.
Of course they could wait a year till such systems drop in price but that may not work out from the business point of view.
So if they really had those problems and behaved rationally, that would be the thing to do - hype the product, take pre-orders, clamp beta-testers mersilessly, cancel open beta, "delay" Mac release (how many Macs out there have power of a high end PC even if the code is as efficient), sell as many copies, then fold.
The good news would be that the code would remain to be bought at the bancrupcy auction, maybe along with the development team.
We will see the truth of it soon and I really hope it is not the case.
I sincerely wish that they were not behaving rationally. That would just mean that the game may be viable and the release was just one of the worst f#@k-ups in history and could be salvaged
That would mean that their investors/directors are stupid, their marketing out of touch with engineering, their support inexperienced/incompetent and their developers are liers.
1. Directors had to be stupid to release such a buggy product if only a few weeks of testing would have improved it enormously and avoided lots of grief.
2. The marketing was misrepresenting and making unfounded claims.
3. The support people had no idea that their networking/hardware would not handle the traffic and did not care to actually test the systems.
4. The developers are lying. That I can be sure of. From what is working, I do not doubt their competence. They must have known about the bugs when they claimed game so stable as to not need an open beta. They must have known realistic system requirements.
I just hope they were lying in support of fumbled reliese rather then bancrupcy scheme.
What does it imply for myself - not much. If WW2OL survives, I will definitely give it a try.
I will wait until I see it perform as advertised and then buy it. My time is too valuable to be their tester right now and anyway, honestly testing buggy beta software is quite different from being tricked into buying it.
Will I buy Gryf's and Mo's products in the future if they work? Sure. Will they have any credit with me? No way.
They are most likely capable guys as programmers. I will just never trust them. Anything I buy with their name on it will have to be running for a while with lot's of reviews.
We will have to wait and see and hope. I have always been interested in trying to figh t T34. I have lots of real-life experience with T-72.
miko
-
Miko,
From what I have read it was either "publish or perish". The money men told them to put it out or fold the tent completely.
I feel certain they knew it was quite buggy and essentially unplayable. Some will judge them harshly for that, others will allow them a grace period because the game concept is highly desirable.
I do not think this is just a money-grab, however. They continue to work on it and it's already improved.
The question is whether or not they will be able to (1) continue to improve and (2) get it playable on an "average" machine.
I think they will continue to improve. I hope they "make it". Anybody doing WW2 games is doing good work, IMO. ;) The real question I guess is whether or not the market will allow them the time they need to get up to speed. Place your bets. ;)
I DO NOT think it will ever be playable on what we all would call an "average" machine at this moment. It's going to take the Gig+/512RAM/64MBVidCard machines to do it right, I think. Their "min specs" are laughable, the "recommended" are barely "min".
Are the Rats "bastiges?" No, I don't think so.
I think they are dreamers who had their dream born prematurely due to pressure from the Suits. I hope the dream survives. :)
-
Well, now you're talking human behavior, something I enjoy discussing after taking several Psych classes in college, and bartending during that time (certainly helped my tips!)..I think once someone has been praising, talking up a sim as this, then once its realized its somewhat 'not ready for primetime'...then to save face, one must continue to stay on their original context..its very hard on ones ego, especially men, to say "I was wrong".
-
Here! Here Miko2d. Pretty good post and although I'm not sure about any bankruptcy, or thier folding, I do agree with the lot of it.
I've book marked Spitboy and crews "Officers Club" due to the WWII Online (when they used to work) and the StratFirst web boards make me want to puke.
This is the first time in online gaming that I've ever looked forward to participating in a game and it's community but I had to delete the bookmarks for the common community gathering boards first. Good thing I never played UO or EQ, huh? ;)
Thier boards now make me appreciate much more the old AW (Bigweek), WB's (AGW) and these AH boards. Luckily, for WW2O, there are good alternatives, private as well as public.
-Westy
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
It's really a shame WW2OL doesn't have the option to become player supported like Falcon4 f.e.
Someone still has to run the server.. =/
I think the dedication of the core playerbase could be the salvation of the game. Seems like they'd die for it.
-
Hey Miko, that had to be the longest post I ever read in my life.
-
I think Codemasters will get my money on Sept 12th.
10Bears
-
You probably have some good points..
But if you are posting something like this
"Speaking of WW2OL and CRS, the only reasonable explanation I've seen of their release fiasco was that they somehow determined non-viability of the product and decided to capitalize on the hype, sell the boxes to recoup the investments and declare bancrupcy before the real state of affairs becomes known.
"
over there, it is pretty silly of you not to expect to get flamed.
Releasing it in a box makes it so that you have to be ready to ship a month or more befor the real release. The patch was what they have improved since.
I dont not play the game and only read about it here but it is an admirable and very ambitios project. Complaining that it is too ambitios when you are playing it because it is ambitios is like complaining when the .com you invest drops through the bucket. Any reasonable person could see that dogpuke.com could not be worth 200 dollars a share.
The general consensus from reasonable people here was that WW2OL was uber ambitios...
They were right.
But the game play is getting good reviews. And that impossible system will be worth 1000US in 6 months...
But will CRS be there to capitalize?
Fortune favours the bold...
But not on my money please :)
-
I don't think the specs needed are as high as that. RAM is the key, if you've got 350 you can get away with a slower processor and graphics card.
Most of the "framerate" issues people complain about are ram related. If your hard disk is accessing like mad when your framerate drops, it's nothing to do with your graphics card, just a lack of memory.
The first time I played online I was hooked. I haven't been able to play since, but I hope they manage to hang on long enough to refine the game into a workable product.
-
You may be right about all the crap, but there is one overriding fact that you touch on, then gloss over:
I will put up with a lot, and I mean a whole lot, just because I WANT this game to exist.
Way back when, as you hardy souls blew major wads of cash and time to play what you must admit was a piece of crap*, I sat back and waited until the game, the price and the hardware was at a point that it became worth it to me personally. I mean AW, of course, and then WB. I didn't play until 98, though I had know about it since 1995, because at that point(WB2.0), it was good enough for me.
So why am I not waiting? Times have changed, and there is no way that an online company can make it without cash. I supported AH without playing it for the same reason. So, even if you KNOW that is not very good in it's current state, if you ever want to see the concept happen, you better pony up your dollars and your online support. Not to cheerlead, per se, but simply to encourage the propagation of the game.
Lizking
*How much trouble did the game and servers give you, to say nothing of Genie? Be honest.
edit-Oh yeah, how many times have you upgraded JUST for this or another game?
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Gadfly ]
-
At times like this, I am amazed that people saying "I told you so" are suprised by the reaction.
Most of the behavior, as rip pointed out, is defensive. Of course, its hard not to be defensive when everybody wants to poke you with a stick.
Kinda think everyone needs to relax... those saying the game sucks and those insisting it is awesome.
AKDejaVu
-
I do not post on WW2OL boards. I cannot even read them more then once a week - too much bile for my taste. The reasonable explanation about the bancrupcy is posted by someone else.
CRS had and still have enormous amount of good will among the public. Many people would be willing to help them financially - through preorder. They would even wait a few months. Wouldn't you rather send a company $40 direct so that they get all of it and get no crap in return and a CD in the mail 6 month later with working code, then waste time buying a game for $40 in the store out of which the company gets $10-$20 that does not work?
I would have gladly paid $50 now for the game to come out in 6 months if the company said they need the cash. I paid for WB for 6 months without playing it when my phone line went bad.
My only condition would be a little bit more opennes in beta testing, more honesty from developers.
That was clearly not the case. Gryf and other CRS people were boasting that they have everything under control and rock-stable and behaved extremely arrogant in general.
The beta-testers were severely clamped down.
There were quite a few "leaks" from beta testers indicating enormous system requirements that were immediately argued by company and other "beta testers".
I was sure that CRS people were lying, not the beta testers warning about the problems. That is why I was not preordering anything.
I am in software business myself and deal with bugs constantly. There is nothing wrong with reasonable amount of them if the programmers do not behave like arrogant prettythangholes.
miko
-
I get a chuckle everytime I see someone blaming this on "the suits".
As far as "believing in the game", those suits shelled out a helluhvalot more money on WWIIOnline than yer average $40 spending "it's not CRS' fault!" fanatic.
You can bet that the suits are probably a little more pissed off at the state of things than the players are.
We know what unfulfilled promises were made to the gamers, but we can only wonder at the extent of the unfulfilled promises made to the investors.
As with the reality of CRS' pockets running only so deep, it is the same with the investors. To expect that they should have the means to tie up untold sums of their money for another year of development based on a promise of release that has probably *already* been significanty missed, is a bit nuts.
Look at it from another perspective... B17-2.
Many blame the suits for the developers having to yank multiplayer. I can just imagine how that meeting must have gone:
"What the #@%%$ do you MEAN yer now not able to offer multiplayer?! Are you seriously sitting here telling me that you want us to fund you guys for another damn year so that you can implement this thing that you @#$$# TOLD US would be in the game when we ponied up for this? Fer chrissakes yer ALREADY 6 months behind schedule!"
Really... if WWIIOnline goes tits up and CRS goes bankrupcy court, it wouldn't be a stretch to find out that the investors are the next ones on the docket.
-
Point of order, the Officers Club is datter's baby. I'm just pitching in helping folks with support issues. :)
I gotta disagree with miko's suggestion about them pushing it out to recoup some cash before bankruptcy. Killer has said CRS gets under $10 per box, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. If you figure 50,000 box sales, which is pretty optimistic, that's only $500,000 for CRS. That ain't even a drop in the bucket compared to what they've shelled out over the past 2+ years. I'm guessing it's costing them well over a million a year in salaries alone. Then the BV engine on their website is at least half a million, all those 25 servers, 200 meg/sec pipe, etc., etc. I would not be suprised to see them in the hole for $6 million or more.
What seems more likely to me is they were simply outta money, due to the launch date slipping, and slipping, and slipping. And the investors/distributors/suits were out of patience. The decision was made to push it out because the estimated $250,000 to $500,000 CRS would recoup in box sales would be enough to push them through three or four more months of development, to get the game to a playable state, and then start recouping costs from subscriptions. Makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, the game was really a month or so from even that point.
Like Gadfly, I'm going to support them with my dollars right now, because I have a blast in game, and I can see the potential for an even greater game once it's all working. I think they have the right idea - they just need to push it across the finish line somehow. Hopefully that can be done in short order.
Spitboy -SW-
-
I don't think there is anyone who hangs out here doesn't want WW2OL to become a reality. I just think theres a lot of us who see past the cheerleading and hype and realize the cold truth that WW2OL falls way short of the expectations it built up, and may not survive long term.
There are more than just RAM problems with this game.
First, get past the server issues, the system requirements, and you'll see the graphics engine is not ground breaking - its reminiscent of a 3 year old Microprose engine with some extra bits tacked on.
The underlying skeleton of the game is there, however it is far from fleshed out. Look at all the loadout/skin/ammo options you can't use yet. This rings alarm bells to me.
Then take a look at the scoring system - or lack of it. System messages even. The cupboard is empty.
Then the strategy system, at the moment its basically the same old spawn->CTF stuff we usually see.
The FM is what feels like a very early stage. Its got issues like the drag modelling.
Lastly look at the weaponry, rifles and smgs, a couple of tanks, a couple of trucks, a couple of AT guns, a couple of aircraft - per side.
What you currently see is more like a demo than a release.
I think people will start to get very bored, and very frustrated once the initial "oohhh-ahhh" period wears off. Which is a pity, because I was really looking forward to WW2OL - or something like it.
-
Hiya Spitboy,
Your quote:
The decision was made to push it out because the estimated $250,000 to $500,000 CRS would recoup in box sales would be enough to push them through three or four more months of development, to get the game to a playable state, and then start recouping costs from subscriptions. Makes sense to me.
To paraphrase (accurately, I hope):
"The decision was made to sell an unplayable product in order to fund the company to get said product to a playable state."
At least I can take no other meaning from what you said than that.
Given this, one can make thousands of comparable analogies (be it using cars, toasters, you name it)... and they would all constitute consumer fraud.
What exactly makes this any different?
-
Heya Nash :)
Well, two things would prevent it from being fraud, I'd think.
1. You can play the game. "Playable" is a term that would have to be defined in a court, and my gut tells me if Playnet could pony up a minimum spec machine, crank the details all to absolute minimum and tweak the box, it would be "playable". That's not to say "enjoyable".
2. As long as they don't charge the subscription fee, they're pretty much covered legally, until the game meets expectations. I'm sure the fine print somewhere says your $40 gets you the manual, the game and any future updates Playnet puts out, and the OPTION to play on line, given a paid subscription fee. And the subscription fee is the kicker.
Fraud? I don't think so. Fraud is defined as A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Deception is iffy. The information WAS officially put out there if you looked - maybe not in gory details, but enough to know the game would be rough and a work in progress. And any court would look at CRS' efforts to get the game up, triple capacity, and fix the issues that plague them. Even with the claims on the box not being technically met at launch: they've always said, long before the box was delivered, that some things would be available as free downloads within 60 days.
To be honest, I really don't understand the fraud claims. Pissed off folks, well, I understand them and their feelings. Take the game back if you must - EB accepts it. It's your $40, and you have a right to do with it what you feel is proper. Or wait it out a few months while it improves. But deliberate fraud? Nah. The only way that case would float IMHO is: A., if their servers were NEVER up, B., demand was constantly unmet after a week, or C., if CRS demonstrably did not make good faith efforts to fulfill their commitments and improve the player experience.
Servers were up the first day - just not stable. They were stable by the end of the third day, and demand was met. They have been constantly updating their customers and working to improve performance. And thousands of people find the game playable enough to fill the servers 24/7.
Spitboy -SW-
-
Spit :)
To be honest, I really don't understand the fraud claims.
Really?
Ok... what the hell, I'm gonna try to give this a solid at bat... Here goes.
"Playable" is a term that would have to be defined in a court, and my gut tells me if Playnet could pony up a minimum spec machine, crank the details all to absolute minimum and tweak the box, it would be "playable".
I would PAY to see the expression on the faces of CRS'/Playnet's team of lawyers if a demonstration like this ever occurred in front of a judge. "Please God PLEASE allow this game to connect to the server this ONE TIME...I won't ask you for anything else ever again".
What are the odds in that? Besides, you need your gut to tell you that it might work? That doesn't say much for this sim now does it, really?
However, that's all beside the point and anecdotal, as you say:
As long as they don't charge the subscription fee, they're pretty much covered legally, until the game meets expectations. I'm sure the fine print somewhere says your $40 gets you the manual, the game and any future updates Playnet puts out, and the OPTION to play on line, given a paid subscription fee. And the subscription fee is the kicker.
1) Are you *sure* the fine print says that?
2) "and the option to play online given a paid subscription fee". Exactly *who's* option? The players? Or do you mean it's CRS'/Playnet's option to *let* you play online?
Both these points are quibbling if in fact the consumer is lead to believe that the package *entitles* them the ability to pay the fee and play this game online. Does the box say "We *may* have reliable servers available to play on for a fee"? Or does it say in essence "With this box and an additional monthly fee, you will be able to play online".
If it's the latter, there is indeed a problem. And don't put so much credence into fine print. The courts surely don't. It doesn't take a whole lot to discern if there's a disparity between what the box is leading the customer to believe, and what the software inside can actually *do* - no matter what any fine print may indicate. Of course, to probably even be able to READ the fine print, you'll need to open the box, thereby voiding any opportunity at most retailers for a return.
To the gist of your argument now:
Fraud? I don't think so. Fraud is defined as A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
Ok... We have 2 parts to what would constitute fraud here, in your opinion. Deception and securing gain.
Securing gain: This part I am sure we agree on. There's no question gain was secured.
Deception: You say that the deception part is "iffy" (i.e... maybe, maybe not, eh?). Your reasoning? Because "the information WAS officially put out there if you looked - maybe not in gory details, but enough to know the game would be rough and a work in progress."
So, by your words.... if one could demonstrate that this *official* information was put out there, then it wouldn't be fraud.
Likewise, if one could demonstrate that this "official" information was NOT put out there, then it *would* be fraud.
I totally agree. Having official information about the expectations of a product available to consumers would obviously let the companies involved off the hook.
So then...
Was this information available to consumers? And JUST as importantly - was it adequate? If not, you and I both seem to agree that it's fraud.
And by available and adequate lets be realistic and say that a website, any promotional material, and the very package that the average consumer sees. It would be ridiculous to put forth the argument that 2nd hand word from the beta testers, or a downplaying of expectations by one of the Rats in some thread in one of the forums constitutes official or adequate information. K?
Additionally, this official information regarding the product being in a "rough" state mustn't be overwhelmed by any conflicting information. If that weren't the case, I could advertise Beenie babies for sale on a website, yet put posters up in my neighborhood saying they aint really Beenie babies.
Thus...
For there NOT to have been fraud, accurate information about this game must have been adequately disseminated to the consumer.
Was it?
Look at the contents of the box.
Are the things promised actually included? I hazard a guess and say not even 20% of them.
So, despite the ease with which CRS/Playnet could have stuck stickers on the box conveying the TRUE state of the sim, we can't find any accurate information on the package itself.
On the website? Not there either. It was a complete reflection of the box (or visa versa).
In the promotional material? I didn't attend the big trade show, but I would be suprised if any pamphlets etc. they handed out gave any indication of the real status of this sim.
CRS interviews? Nope, nothing there either.
Ok. Right there. No adequate official information about the status of this sim.
By your own definition then, this is fraud.
I'd actually be interested in where you DID see any information about how this sim really works.
I know you were a beta tester, so maybe the edges of what information you knew, and what was available to the public, got blurred.
I was also a beta tester. When I found out that this sim went gold a couple weeks ago, I was utterly and completely dumbfounded. In my mind then and in my mind now, this release was so *entirely* fraudulent that I lost almost all respect for the people involved.
Still, Spitboy, I think you remain insulated from the reality of this release by frequenting datter's "OC". The reality there is the reality to .005% of the people that got duped by this game. I mean - you go as far as to say that the "servers were up the first day - just not stable. They were stable by the end of the third day, and demand was met."
Demand was/is being met?
Oh man...
I've said before that I think it's somewhat noble of people to believe in something and wanna back it up... but it kills me how much folks (as intelligent and reasonable as I know you are, Spitboy) would be willing to leave their senses at the door in doing so.
-
Wow, lotta reply there :) I hate point-by-point debates, but you're a reasonable and intelligent guy, Nash, so it deserves a reply.
First off, let me say that I don't think I'm being insulated from the reality at all. If you'll note, my contributions over at datter's OC have been helping people deal with issues. I'm more than aware of the problems that game has. I've also been more than willing to point them out, here and elsewhere.
Don't confuse enthusiasm for the concept with enthusiasm for the game in its current state. The only things I've advocated are A., the game has potential, B., there IS fun to be had, and C., folks oughta give it a shot themselves when they feel comfortable buying the game. I stand behind all three statements, and I think you'll find there's quite a few people, even here, who echo those statements.
You made a suggestion that outright fraud was practiced by Playnet on the players. I disagree, and attempted to explain why, in a court, I highly doubt any legal case of fraud could be demonstrated. I'm not debating the rightness or wrongness of the release; just my feelings on the fraud point.
I would PAY to see the expression on the faces of CRS'/Playnet's team of lawyers if a demonstration like this ever occurred in front of a judge. "Please God PLEASE allow this game to connect to the server this ONE TIME...I won't ask you for anything else ever again".
What are the odds in that? Besides, you need your gut to tell you that it might work? That doesn't say much for this sim now does it, really?
I don't think I was clear. My "gut" was not telling me it "might" work. I know it works. I and thousands of others can play fine, 24/7. Not a cheerlead, a fact. I was suggesting that all Playnet had to do to legally prove the game is "playable" is demonstrate it works on a minimum spec box. Period. This they could easily do. The term "playable" itself is completely vague. A 3-minutes load time might not be playable to you, but it is to me. I think "playable" would be defined in the broadest legal sense possible.
As long as they don't charge the subscription fee, they're pretty much covered legally, until the game meets expectations. I'm sure the fine print somewhere says your $40 gets you the manual, the game and any future updates Playnet puts out, and the OPTION to play on line, given a paid subscription fee. And the subscription fee is the kicker.
1) Are you *sure* the fine print says that?
2) "and the option to play online given a paid subscription fee". Exactly *who's* option? The players? Or do you mean it's CRS'/Playnet's option to *let* you play online?
If it's the latter, there is indeed a problem. And don't put so much credence into fine print. The courts surely don't. It doesn't take a whole lot to discern if there's a disparity between what the box is leading the customer to believe, and what the software inside can actually *do* - no matter what any fine print may indicate. Of course, to probably even be able to READ the fine print, you'll need to open the box, thereby voiding any opportunity at most retailers for a return.
First, the box is returnable after opening. This would fall under buyer beware, which is a valid legal precedence - ask before you buy. I've heard many reports of EB taking the game back. Hey, I'm not cheerleading, just being logical here.
Second, the EULA, I'm sure, is very much like any other company's. Paying $40 gives you the non-exclusive rights to use the software, as is, with very few warranties or guarantees. Read the DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES block on any EULA. Basically, it covers the developer six ways from Sunday - putting the baseline at "best efforts".
Was this information available to consumers? And JUST as importantly - was it adequate? If not, you and I both seem to agree that it's fraud.
And by available and adequate lets be realistic and say that a website, any promotional material, and the very package that the average consumer sees. It would be ridiculous to put forth the argument that 2nd hand word from the beta testers, or a downplaying of expectations by one of the Rats in some thread in one of the forums constitutes official or adequate information. K?
...
So, despite the ease with which CRS/Playnet could have stuck stickers on the box conveying the TRUE state of the sim, we can't find any accurate information on the package itself.
On the website? Not there either. It was a complete reflection of the box (or visa versa).
In the OFFICIAL pre-release intelligence report on the playnet.com and wwiionline.com web site, the following info was put out by Mo, the producer, 5 full days before release:
The size and magnitude of this design has become more of a challenge than we ever anticipated. Having to delay the naval portion was a choice that literally saved the title from sure failure. A bitter pill to swallow, but was clearly the right call to make. There are other features that we did not have time to get in for first release like paratroopers, artillery, some RPG features, and visible convoys. These will all be available hot on the heels of the release, but WWIIOL won't be "finished" any time soon. The benefit of a MMOLG paradigm is that development can continue, and the product improves as time goes on- new theaters opening, new vehicles and additional gameplay features. Our plan is a steady flow of updates and additions to keep the game fresh, and give it the feel that the war progresses in more ways than just the front lines.
In the same update, Snail said:
This release represents the very best efforts of our development team under the timelines we faced. It is the first step on journey towards delivering all the function and features we'd like to see- and we think you would too. I'd rather it was perfect before we stuck it out there but we can't sit on it forever. We can't sit on it at all. The upside is, as MO mentioned earlier…we're in a business where the game's never finished, and updates are part and parcel of the way we do things. The game WILL improve as time goes on…more features will be added, more theaters…more vehicles…and more polish.
Further, detailed information about exactly what vehicles and weapons were available in game were provided. It was clearly stated other things promised would be delivered as free updates. I believe that meets the criteria you establish as being visible enough and official enough, and forewarning that the game is rough, and a work in progress.
Demand was/is being met?
Oh man...
Yes, it was. I know you've been around these games for a long time :) You'll recall I'm sure cases where paying customers of MacAW, of Warbirds, or of Aces High were either unable to connect because the servers were unavailable or the quality of play was so bad it wasn't worth playing. Of course those times were typically VERY brief - maybe it was due to large demand for a new release being downloaded, or a server problem, etc. Nowhere did I see you or other fans screaming fraud. It's accepted that MMOG networks are not an exact science, and that things occasional go wrong. That's no different than Playnet's initial three days of server problems. So, I and thousands of others, are willing to write off the rocky first few days as a teething period.
Yes, demand IS being met, and fun IS being delivered, for thousands of people. Information WAS provided officially in advance of release detailing the rough status of the game. And that's the bottom line from a legal/fraud standpoint, really. You may not be one of the people having fun, and that's fine, too. You have the option of taking the game back if you practiced caveat emptor and inquired before purchase.
That leaves the state of the game. And we're back to the EULA and the legal definition of "playability". I've gone over that, and my feeling is it would literally be laughed out of court.
Now, that's the fraud debate. If you want to debate the ethics, the rightness/wrongness of releasing the game in this state, that's another matter entirely, and I think the real point you're trying to get at. I've posted here and elsewhere that I thought it was a big mistake to release it as is. Go see the thread in datter's OC where I say it was just bad business.
But fraud? Heck no. Three thousand people I played with last night on a stable server who were all having fun would disagree with that. And don't say "only 3,000? They're not serving their players!" That's 10% of their users, a good number for peak useage. I'd bet HTC has 2,500 accounts, yet there's only 250 or so online at any one time - 10%.
Spitboy -SW-
-
And to be precise, here's the part of the EULA for WW2OL that's applicable to the above:
The Company does not warrant that the Software or its operations or functions will meet your requirements, nor that the use thereof will be without interruption or error.
EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTY SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COMPANY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING AND WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTY SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COMPANY DOES NOT WARRANT, GUARANTEE OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE IN TERMS OF ITS CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, CURRENTNESS OR OTHERWISE.
That's standard legalese. Compare it to the same section in the HTC EULA, or any game. The only real difference between it and HTC's is that Playnet guarantees the physical CD-ROM will work like a CD-ROM for 90 days, since you paid for it.
Again - please separate anger and disappointment from fraud. There's a distinction. You have every right to be mad at Playnet, to feel they screwed you, and to say you'll never buy another product from them. More power to you, and I can understand where you are coming from, even though I do not feel the same way. However, that does not mean they are guilty of fraud.
Spitboy -SW-
-
You can't compare warbirds or Aces High to ww2ol. Ww2ol is a boxed game, a $40 purchase where warbirds and especially aces high software is free. Who would care less if a free software wouldnt be working?
If people would be smart, they'd return the game based on the EULA which denies all promises made previously in marketing and the box.
The whole concept of buying a boxed game means that the customer expects to have a working product in exchange of his money.
If the customer pays money for a product that was falsely advertised to be functional, he can sue the company for false advertising. Not fraud maybe, but false advertising for sure.
Also make no mistake.. the online part of WW2OL must work reliably in order to fulfill the promises made in the boxed purchase. WW2OL has no playable offline section like many other games have, therefore if the online section fails to work the whole product can be seen as failure.
-
And btw I just read on the CRS BB that the first hacks were seen yesterday in the fps part.. That must be somekind of a record.
First hacks introduced before all players had the chance to log on LOL.
Quake kiddies writing hacks will be the final doom of the game.
-
I bought the game on Saturday. Servers had problems that day, but still managed to get on for a bit. Since then the only time I wasn't able to get on was Sunday when the servers were full. Every day since then I've been able to get online in the game. The game -is- playable in MOST aspects, flight is an exception(edit, I can't spell!), lots and lots of people get dropped to the desktop while in the air. even 384mb isn't enough RAM for flying where the action is.
The problem here was that CRS told their publishers they'd be ready in a general time frame. As with almost EVERY single software project, they were hideously behind schedule, due to the inevitable mistake of not planning enough time. Very, very few software projects are made on time, and under budget with the FULL set of features planned. For some reason, software developers always underestimate how long it'll take. Hell, I even do it with my assignments for school. "that'll take me 6 hours to do." 12 hours later... "finally got it working!" This problem isn't related only to games, it's everywhere in software development. They pound that into us in my Software Engineering curriculum, especially in Specification and Design classes.
Now this isn't to say if it's right or wrong (morally or legally), this is just to point out where the problems probably originated from. If the game wasn't pushed out the door, it might never have made it out ever. These publishers and developers don't have the deep pockets that Sony, EA and Microsoft have. If Star Wars gets a bit behind schedule, Sony can handle it. SF, Playnet and CRS just don't have that financial leeway.
It would have been better if they coulda held off just a month more and done some significant load testing. Perhaps they literally couldn't afford to wait anymore.
And if you call this cheerleading... SHEESH! This is stating the facts as I see them. I can log on to the game server. I can play for extended periods of time, OTHER than in a plane over a battle. The vast majority of software projects do not have enough dev time scheduled.
Anyways, take the game back if you're not happy, assuming your retailer will let you. You'll get your $40 back, and that's all you're owed IMO.
[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Nifty ]
-
"If the game wasn't pushed out the door, it might never have made it out ever."
However true that may be it is not an excuse for the all the hype and sales pitches the crowd all got from the CRS folks right up to the day before it was released. I think that is the reason for many peoples anger aimed at the 'Rats.' They've rightfully earned any skepticism and mistrust by the online player population.
Westy
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
"If the game wasn't pushed out the door, it might never have made it out ever."
However true that may be it is not an excuse for the all the hype and sales pitches the crowd all got from the CRS folks right up to the day before it was released. I think that is the reason for many peoples anger aimed at the 'Rats.' They've rightfully earned any skepticism and mistrust by the online player population.
Westy
don't forget the sentence right before what you quoted in your post. :) I wasn't defending them or passing judgement per se. I was merely trying to point out WHY the product is on the market already, not the WAY in which it hit the market. In other words, I neither officially agree nor disagree with your statement. :D